On 20 July 2011 16:27, mark florisson <markflorisson88 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20 July 2011 21:13, Lisandro Dalcin <dalcinl at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 20 July 2011 15:32, mark florisson <markflorisson88 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 20 July 2011 20:04, Lisandro Dalcin <dalcinl at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 20 July 2011 13:51, mark florisson <markflorisson88 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 20 July 2011 18:06, Lisandro Dalcin <dalcinl at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 19 July 2011 20:48, Robert Bradshaw <robertwb at math.washington.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Lisandro Dalcin <dalcinl at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 19 July 2011 02:24, Vitja Makarov <vitja.makarov at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 2011/7/18 Robert Bradshaw <robertwb at math.washington.edu>:
>>>>>>>>>> Trevor King and I discussed this quite a while back, but every time I
>>>>>>>>>> got around to looking at his code (I don't think he ever created a
>>>>>>>>>> formal pull request) something came up. The idea was that we could
>>>>>>>>>> support cpdef structs and extern functions as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's interesting, I think I shouldn't hurry with my pull request.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2011/7/19 Robert Bradshaw <robertwb at math.washington.edu>:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Greg Ewing <greg.ewing at canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> My suggestion is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cdef exposed enum:
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree, public is an overloaded word. This meaning is analogous to
>>>>>>>>>> its use for cdef class members. Perhaps we should use "api" for api
>>>>>>>>>> generation, and public used for Python-level access, with cpdef being
>>>>>>>>>> the preferred form for declaring Python-accessible types.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that cpdef is more cythonic but exposed could be used
>>>>>>>>> in this case:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cdef extern from "ev.h":
>>>>>>>>> exposed enum:
>>>>>>>>> EV_READ
>>>>>>>>> EV_WRITE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And what about this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cdef extern from "ev.h":
>>>>>>>> cpdef enum:
>>>>>>>> EV_READ
>>>>>>>> EV_WRITE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, exactly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, how is this supposed to work with *.pxd files? I think the values
>>>>>>>> will be exposed just in the matching implementation .pyx file, and not
>>>>>>>> with cimport, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be an error unless there's an corresponding .pyx file (which
>>>>>>> could be empty). The idea is that one could also define extern cpdef
>>>>>>> functions and structs and wrappers would be provided.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be an error? What do you mean? if you cpdef enum in foo.pxd,
>>>>>> and have foo.pyx, then the enumerations should be exposed in the 'foo'
>>>>>> module. But then if you "cimport foo" in bar.pyx, that should succeed
>>>>>> but the enumerations should not be exposed in the "bar" module... Am I
>>>>>> missing something?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe Robert confirmed what you said and added to that that it
>>>>> would be an error to have a cpdef extern enum in a .pxd without a
>>>>> corresponding .pyx file.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But what an "error" means? Cython is going to fail compilation?
>>>> Suppose I develop a package, and at setup.py install time my package
>>>> installs somewhere a .pxd full of definitions in such a way that
>>>> third-party code can cimport it. Then, while writing the third party
>>>> code, you cimport the my package .pxd, and obviously there is no .pyx
>>>> for my package, as you are writing YOUR code. What's going to happen
>>>> in this case?
>>>>>> If you want to use cpdef in your .pxd, it means you want to expose
>>> those to Python. This means they must be importable from Python, which
>>> means you need an extension module that exposes the constants, which
>>> means you need a .pyx. So you ship a (possibly empty) .pyx file along
>>> with your .pxd. If you don't want to expose them to Python but only to
>>> Cython, don't use cpdef. This compile time error would be issued
>>> whenever a user does a cimport of a .pxd file that has a cpdef enum
>>> with no corresponding .pyx file, i.e. the pxd is unusable, you
>>> wouldn't ship it in the first place.
>>>>>>> So supose I want to write a small wrapper for dlopen(), then I do:
>>>> # dl.pxd
>> cdef from extern from "dlfcn.h":
>> cpdef enum: RTLD_GLOBAL
>> void * dlopen()(const char *filename, int flag);
>>>> # dl.pyx
>> def open(filename, mode):
>> cdef void *handle = c_dlopen(fiename,handle)
>> return <long>handle
>>>> Then the "dl" module namespace contains "dlopen" and "RTLD_GLOBAL"
>>>> Now, suppose I code my setup.py to build the ext module and install
>> dl.pxd as package data.
>>>> Now a user runs "pip install dl" and installs my package. She wants to
>> reuse my .pxd (installed somewhere) for calling dlopen() in its own
>> Cython code:
>>>> # user.pyx
>> from dl cimport RTLD_GLOBAL, c_dlopen
>> dlopen("somelibrary.so", RTLD_GLOBAL)
>>>>>> So the user code is going to fail? Then I cannot take advantage of
>> cpdef enum for developing my "dl" module, I have to go back to
>> manually exposing the enumerations
>>>> Why can't you ship both dl.pxd and dl.pyx as package data?
>
This is like asking to provide a C source in order to being able to
#include "someheader.h" in other C sources. End users do not need
implementation source code, they need declarations,interface,header
files.
--
Lisandro Dalcin
---------------
CIMEC (INTEC/CONICET-UNL)
Predio CONICET-Santa Fe
Colectora RN 168 Km 472, Paraje El Pozo
3000 Santa Fe, Argentina
Tel: +54-342-4511594 (ext 1011)
Tel/Fax: +54-342-4511169